Union Presbyterian Seminary: a new name for an old school Friday, May 22 2009

The Clock Tower atop Watts Chapel

I find myself having to update my CV and résumés, now that the institution from which I earned both my M.Div. and Th.M. degrees has changed its name. What was once Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, having federated with the Presbyterian School of Christian Education and temporarily dubbed itself Union-PSCE, will henceforth be known as Union Presbyterian Seminary.

Like many alumni, I suspect, my verdict on the new name is still pending. I’m not a Presbyterian (with a big ‘P’, that is, as it’s rather hard to categorically oppose the office of the presbyter!), but I did choose Union for my initial theological education because I was attracted to the liberal Reformed tradition vis-à-vis Schleiermacher. So I find it helpful that President Brian Blount recently delivered a sermon that dealt with the name change, in which he defends the inclusion of “Presbyterian” thusly:

If we are as ecumenical as we have always claimed we are, here is our chance to live what we say by not running from our name but by reinvigorating what our name stands for. By how we train church leaders who are not just Presbyterian, but mostly so, by how we call faculty who are from the broad spectrum of the church, which we already do, by sending our graduates out with the knowledge of what God is doing in the world through a Reformed lens that has always been open to and engaging of other Christian perspectives, we can teach church leaders who can teach the church and the world what it has meant, does mean, and will mean to be Presbyterian. There are many in the world who don’t know. And those who do know see a church, or at least a seminary, running away from its own legacy as it apparently runs out of time. If the educational flagships of this faith armada abandon the name and therefore abandon the churches who still bear that name, then it is a time to fear for the Presbyterian church indeed.

The Union Presbyterian Seminary Quad

It seems we’re at a juncture in which each denomination is frightened of what appears to be a potential lack of a future. Anglicans, of course, are—to use the poetry of Charles Wesley – “sore oppressed with schisms rent asunder.” In the midst of its consideration of multiple restructuring proposals, the United Methodist Church finds its members asking “Why I remain a United Methodist,” under the assumption that its future is suspect. (The UM blogosphere has had a field trip on this question, which began here. Subsequent posts are too numerous to hyperlink…just google it if you’re interested.) At the juncture of these three traditions in my theological education, I too wonder what the future holds. We fear the annihilation of our traditions but we hold fast to hope in resurrection.

Similarly, President Blount:

I’ve always wanted to have Bible stuff happen to me. But the truth be told, I’ve only wanted the good stuff in the Bible to happen to me. I dread the leprosy, but I covet Jesus’ touch. I shudder at the blindness, but I glory in the suddenness of new sight. I tremble at the portraits of biblical poverty, but I long for the wealth of God’s presence walking and talking all over my countryside. I want the miracles, but I don’t want the desperate, painful, dangerous world the miracles must engage.

And that makes me think of what God can do in our world, with our name, with even “Presbyterian.” I think of Jeremiah in the 32nd chapter of his book, going to buy a field in Anathoth, a land under siege, destined to be destroyed. But his purchase was a sign of God’s faithfulness, and a sign of his participation with God in the new thing that was going to happen to this old and dying land. His purchase was a sign to his people of his trust that God was going to bring this land and this people back.

I like the first paragraph. And yet the second paragraph doesn’t quite follow. He assumes that it’s the name, “Union Theological Seminary and the Presbyterian School of Christian Education,” that is to be destroyed, but the thing itself, the “land under siege,” is what will be resurrected. But couldn’t the name “Presbyterian” be the thing destined to be destroyed? That seems to be the larger fear underlying many in the church today, that “Methodism” or “Anglicanism” or “Presbyterianism” is teetering on bankruptcy.

But perhaps—and I emphasize perhaps – God has something greater in store for all of us. Don’t get me wrong…I believe that the current ecumenical climate demands that we all emphasize the particularities of our traditions rather than whitewashing them with gross generalizations and universalist hogwash. But that doesn’t mean maintaining the status quo. As I’ve stated frequently here, I long for the day when Methodists are an order within the larger Anglican Communion or perhaps even the Roman Catholic Church, like the Benedictines or Dominicans or Jesuits, etc. But I digress.

At this point I’m fine with changing all my résumés to say “Presbyterian” (though I will include “formerly Union Theological Seminary in Virginia” when space permits!). I’m just nervous that all the crisis talk in our denominations hides the fact that we really should be looking elsewhere than inwardly. Then again, that would be all too characteristic of liberal Reformed theology vis-à-vis Schleiermacher.

One Response »

 

Rock & Theology Blog Thursday, May 21 2009

www.rockandtheology.com

I’m excited to report that I’m now a contributor on another blog, “Rock and Theology.” The R&T project, spearheaded by Fordham’s Tom Beaudoin and sponsored by Liturgical Press (the publishing arm of the Benedictines in the US), hopes to generate interest through the blog and perhaps launch some publications in the future. A bit of background on the project:

This “Rock and Theology” blog is the first fruit of this project. And there’s more to come. We hope the blog will be a place to ask how faith and culture constellate, how contemporary social embodiment comes to be spiritual-religious, by cycling through the cultures of rock and theology. To discover new pleasures in theology and secular music, however difficult the lessons of those pleasures for what we thought theology and rock had to be. And to test, as a blog, the virtues of the ephemeral for all of us who live engulfed by the worldly and the spiritual.

Other contributors at this point are Loye Ashton (Tougaloo) Tom Beaudoin (Fordham), Adrian Hartley (Blue Man Group), Michael Iafrate (St Michael’s College, Toronto), and Brian Robinette (Saint Louis). My first post was yesterday, and I look forward to engaging these issues further with these colleagues and others.

Leave a Response »

 

Benedictus benedīcet Sunday, May 10 2009

From yesterday’s meeting with Muslim religious leaders, members of the Diplomatic Corps and Rectors of universities in Jordan in front of the mosque al-Hussein bin Talal:

…we cannot fail to be concerned that today, with increasing insistency, some maintain that religion fails in its claim to be, by nature, a builder of unity and harmony, an expression of communion between persons and with God. Indeed some assert that religion is necessarily a cause of division in our world; and so they argue that the less attention given to religion in the public sphere the better. Certainly, the contradiction of tensions and divisions between the followers of different religious traditions, sadly, cannot be denied. However, is it not also the case that often it is the ideological manipulation of religion, sometimes for political ends, that is the real catalyst for tension and division, and at times even violence in society? In the face of this situation, where the opponents of religion seek not simply to silence its voice but to replace it with their own, the need for believers to be true to their principles and beliefs is felt all the more keenly. Muslims and Christians, precisely because of the burden of our common history so often marked by misunderstanding, must today strive to be known and recognized as worshippers of God faithful to prayer, eager to uphold and live by the Almighty’s decrees, merciful and compassionate, consistent in bearing witness to all that is true and good, and ever mindful of the common origin and dignity of all human persons, who remain at the apex of God’s creative design for the world and for history.

…

Distinguished friends, today I wish to refer to a task which I have addressed on a number of occasions and which I firmly believe Christians and Muslims can embrace, particularly through our respective contributions to learning and scholarship, and public service. That task is the challenge to cultivate for the good, in the context of faith and truth, the vast potential of human reason. Christians in fact describe God, among other ways, as creative Reason, which orders and guides the world. And God endows us with the capacity to participate in his reason and thus to act in accordance with what is good. Muslims worship God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who has spoken to humanity. And as believers in the one God we know that human reason is itself God’s gift and that it soars to its highest plane when suffused with the light of God’s truth. In fact, when human reason humbly allows itself to be purified by faith, it is far from weakened; rather, it is strengthened to resist presumption and to reach beyond its own limitations. In this way, human reason is emboldened to pursue its noble purpose of serving mankind, giving expression to our deepest common aspirations and extending, rather than manipulating or confining, public debate. Thus, genuine adherence to religion – far from narrowing our minds – widens the horizon of human understanding. It protects civil society from the excesses of the unbridled ego which tend to absolutize the finite and eclipse the infinite; it ensures that freedom is exercised hand in hand with truth, and it adorns culture with insights concerning all that is true, good and beautiful.

This understanding of reason, which continually draws the human mind beyond itself in the quest for the Absolute, poses a challenge; it contains a sense of both hope and caution. Together, Christians and Muslims are impelled to seek all that is just and right. We are bound to step beyond our particular interests and to encourage others, civil servants and leaders in particular, to do likewise in order to embrace the profound satisfaction of serving the common good, even at personal cost. And we are reminded that because it is our common human dignity which gives rise to universal human rights, they hold equally for every man and woman, irrespective of his or her religious, social or ethnic group. In this regard, we must note that the right of religious freedom extends beyond the question of worship and includes the right – especially of minorities – to fair access to the employment market and other spheres of civic life.

Leave a Response »

 

The return of a journal Friday, May 1 2009

I was thrilled to see in today’s UMNS update that the Quarterly Review, a journal that ended in 2005, returned today under the title Methodist Review. Whereas the previous journal received the bulk of its funding through a joint effort of GBHEM and UMPH, its current incarnation combines the resources of Emory’s Candler School of Theology, SMU’s Perkins School of Theology, the Association of United Methodist Theological Schools and GBHEM, and with the editorial team of Ted Campbell, Russell Richey, and Rex Matthews.

Methodist Review is completely free online, requiring only a simple registration. The first issue, published on the website today, contains the following:

An Editorial Welcome to Methodist Review
Russell E. Richey, Ted A. Campbell, Rex D. Matthews

What Makes Theology “Wesleyan”?
Sarah Heaner Lancaster, Catherine Keller, Donald A. Thorsen, Dennis C. Dickerson, Charles M. Wood

The United Methodist Church at 40: Where Have We Come From?
Russell E. Richey

The United Methodist Church at 40: How Have We Done?
Woodie W. White

The United Methodist Church at 40: What Can We Hope For?
Mary Elizabeth Moore

Although as the journal has now been reduced to only one issue per year, I can only surmise that next year’s contents will consist of a series on “The UMC at 41.” With presumably a significant backlog of submissions, I figure my best bet is to prepare “The UMC at 45″ (or 50) now and perhaps it will make its way through the queue by then!

Leave a Response »

 

Outler on ecumenism as a means to an evangelical end Friday, Mar 13 2009

Albert C. Outler, 1908-1989

Today I read this excellent paragraph from Albert C. Outler’s That the World may Believe: a study of Christian unity (New York: Joint Commission on Education and Cultivation, Board of Missions of the Methodist Church, 1966), pp. 13-14:

If we could agree that our interest in Christian unity came from our concern for the effectiveness of the Christian mission, we could also be frank in our appraisals of the virtues and faults of the actual programs of ecumenical action that are being sponsored by our churches and by the various councils of churches—local, national, and worldwide. It is the devoted ecumenist—and not the sectarian—who should be first to disavow all those starry-eyed enthusiasts who extol unity for the sake of unity. He should also reject those impatient prophets who refuse to reckon with the practical difficulties involved. It is the ecumenist who should disclaim the label of “indifferentism” by resisting the temptation to set aside all disputed points. He should refuse to conceal, water down, or even deny his own basic convictions in the interest of some spurious consensus that will not last. It is the veteran ecumenist—not the novice and certainly not the sectarian—who should resist the lure of “bigness” and the seductions of pomp and circumstance. It is an article of his creed that the basic unit of the universal Christian community is the local community of Christians—all the Christians in each place in valid communion with each other.

Leave a Response »

 

Why, EULA, why? Wednesday, Mar 11 2009

My great-grandmother’s name was Eula. It’s a beautiful name, appropriately so since it means “good speaking” (eu-lalia). It’s also my grandmother’s middle name, so I’m quite fond of it. But the name has been damaged, I’m afraid, by a different EULA altogether….

I typically never read EULAs (those Terms of Agreement that one clicks through when installing software). But tonight, as I was redeeming an iTunes gift from a friend in the states, I took the time to see that I was to agree to the following two items (among a much larger list):

U.S. SALES ONLY

Purchases or rentals (as applicable) from the iTunes Store are available to you only in the United States and are not available in any other location. You agree not to use or attempt to use the iTunes Store from outside of the available territory. Apple may use technologies to verify such compliance.

GIFTS

Gifts purchased from the iTunes Store in the United States may be purchased only for, and redeemed only by, residents of the United States. Gifts are non-refundable. Gifts may not be purchased with iTunes Cards, Gift Certificates or Allowance Accounts. Gifts may not be used for Movie Rentals or Apps.

As an American studying in Canada, this is frustrating. This is the kind of stupid thing that wastes time, which is rarely in abundance these days. According to the second paragraph, I can redeem the gift because I am, in fact, a Wisconsin resident. After all, I have the driving license, the permanent address, and the bank account to prove it.

But according to the first paragraph, I cannot use the iTunes store outside of the United States. Of course I could change my iTunes account to correspond with my Canadian billing address, and therefore be enabled to use the store here in Canada. But that would prohibit me from redeeming the gift according to the second paragraph.

So I’m downloading this gift anyway–the new Bela Fleck album–in spite of what the principalities and powers (read: Steve Jobs and UMG Distribution) have devised. But I’ve learned my lesson…never read EULAs again.

Leave a Response »

 

Grammatical thomists and their interlocuters Monday, Mar 2 2009

This semester I’m taking an excellent triad of theological coursework: Church Dogmatics I/1, Summa contra gentiles III/1, and Wittgenstein. In my attempt to bring it all together, today I came across Philip Rolnick’s Analogical Possibilities (Scholar’s Press, 1993), in which he studies transcendental Thomism (via W. Norris Clarke), grammatical Thomism (via Burrell), and Jüngel’s critique of the entire Thomist analogical enterprise. I mention it because it appears to present a comprehensive study of analogy and participatory metaphysics before the radically orthodox took over the discussion!

I’d love to read this tonight, but I actually have Thomas and Wittgenstein to read for tomorrow (go figure…one should actually read primary sources?!). So I hope to get back to reviewing Rolnick’s book at some point later on.

Are there any other reading recommendations for navigating the nexus of  Wittgenstein-Thomas-Barth studies out there?

Leave a Response »

 

The ecumenically good, bad and ugly… Wednesday, Feb 25 2009

…for the week of February 22-28, 2009.

The Good

Bishops Skylstad and Whitaker UMNS photo by the Rev. W. Douglas Mills

UMNS is reporting on the national dialogue between Roman Catholics and United Methodists in the United States (to be distinguished from the international Joint Commission, as well as the three other Catholic-Methodist national dialogues in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand).

The dialogue most recently met in December, however, so I’m not quite sure why UMNS is reporting on it now. Better late than never, I guess! Any extra press that these dialogues can get is good, since — as I stated in the previous post — the broader reception of such ecumenical discussions is critical to their success.

As to be expected, the Wesley Report — despite its otherwise excellent service — dismisses this promising ecumenical project. (?!?) I just don’t get it.

The Bad & the Ugly

Three congregations from the Wabash Valley Presbytery in Indiana have converted from the PCUSA to the EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church). Such schisms are becoming standard practice now, having previously occurred in the Pittsburgh Presbytery.

The congregationalist John Owen — whom Ephraim Radner has called the “father of American ecclesiology” (a critical remark!) — claimed that there was no such thing as schism, excepting that which occurs in an individual congregation. In such a case, it would simply be an instance of true believers and false believers separating from each other, thus preserving the purity of the “true” church. (I wonder, however, what Owen would think of those Christians who leave one congregation for another, perhaps because the music is better or there are fewer stewardship sermons?)

But among Indiana Presbyterians, we see a slightly different form of schism: whole congregations shifting from one denomination to another. The situation is quite similar to those churches that have left TEC for the new Anglican Province of North America. The EPC is relatively young, resulting from a 1981 split from PCUSA’s precursor. Thus the action of these three congregations begs the question whether it constitutes schism or merely a “switch” from one denomination to another with equal ecclesial status.

At what point does a schismatic church become a legitimate denomination? Perhaps at its first council or its first eucharist. Perhaps after five years or its first 10,000 members. I suspect that the ridiculousness of such speculative answers demonstrates the illegitimacy — or at least the questionableness — of any schismatic church.

(Gasp! Perhaps even my own beloved United Methodist Church?!)

2 Responses »

 

The ecumenically good, bad & ugly Sunday, Feb 8 2009

…for the week of 1-7 February 2009

The Good

The good news is that the new “Anglican-Methodist International Commission for Unity in Mission” (AMICUM?) has met for the first time. Although Methodists have enjoyed an (enormously successful) international Joint Commission with Roman Catholics since 1967, as well as numerous bilateral relations with Anglicans at the national level, this is the first international dialogue with members of the Anglican Communion. Three cheers to George Freeman and the World Methodist Council for continuing to build ecumenical relations with churches outside the Methodist family.

The Bad

Although I greatly appreciate the news service—and quite often the editorial viewpoint—that the Wesley Report provides, Shane’s cynicism toward ecumenicity is symptomatic of a serious ailment within the church. Concerning the above International Commission (about which I learned from the Wesley Report), he writes:

Should we get Jimmy Carter to broker the Methodist-Anglican peace talks? That was a joke… we’re not at war as far as I know, but I was mildly amused when I saw the headline at UMNS “Commission to Aid Anglican-Methodist Relations“. Is there some big chasm I don’t know about? Are Anglicans and Methodists not on speaking terms somewhere? Is the world as we know it going to end if the two movements don’t “get together” in some magical, ecumenical way?

On one hand, I can understand Shane’s cynicism; the ecumenical movement is indeed at a standstill and has been for several years. But the reason is not because the ecumenical bureaucratic structures are failures. They were never meant to be messianic instruments of unity that many people unfortunately mistook them to be. The ecumenical movement is at a standstill because what it needs now is what ecumenical theologians call “reception.”

Take the Roman Catholic-World Methodist Council Joint Commission, for instance. Since Vatican II, they have met annually and produced a major constructive report every five years. These reports often contain significant proposals for reconciliation and ecclesial unity. Take the Roman Catholic doctrine of infallibility, for instance. The Joint Commission has actually done some significant theological work in understanding infallibility as a communal form of the more individualized Wesleyan doctrine of assurance. There is some really interesting work going on in these groups!

But they do not speak for the denominations. They are simply “working groups” that dialogue and prepare documents that must then be received by the churches themselves. No matter what theological breakthroughs are made regarding infallibility and assurance, they are of no effect if that collegiality doesn’t become part of the discourse of the actual churches themselves—at both the local and denominational levels.

However, Shane’s comments may reflect more than just cynicism toward ecumenical structures. He also questions the claim that there is “some big chasm” between Anglicans and Methodists, as if our separation was not a problem. Perhaps I’ll tackle this in another post in another couple of weeks, as it’s too large to deal with now. But suffice it to say that any chasm between Christians is too big. At the moment, the Anglican Communion is breaking apart over issues of sexuality. And what difference does this make to Methodists? None whatsoever! The Anglican Communion could disappear and it wouldn’t make a single difference to how Methodists operate. Such a model of the church is more akin to a military or cell group; the strength of such groups is that they can thrive even when other cells disappear. But contrast this with Paul’s corporeal model of the church in 1 Corinthians 12:26: “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.”

The Ugly

The ugly is, once again, Richard Williamson. Although, as I posted last week, I’m quite upset by how the media—and Christians as well—are handling the news of his excommunication being revoked, I must also say that—as a brother in Christ—he must be called to accountability. Apparently Williamson is willing to look at the evidence again, that perhaps his research in the 1980s was faulty. I’m willing to grant Mr. (NOT “Bishop”!) Williamson that perhaps the media is misquoting him. But surely someone who holds to such a controversial view should keep their research current?! I feel like I’m overstepping my bounds when I talk about Charles Wesley’s musical aesthetic, about which I did some significant research in 2002, but haven’t updated it since then! I surely wouldn’t publish on it now until I read everything related to the subject that’s been published in the meantime!

Leave a Response »

 

The ecumenically good, bad & ugly Sunday, Feb 1 2009

…for the week of January 25-31, 2009

Although my practice so far has been to report on different events, the ecumenically “good, bad & ugly” for this week can all be wrapped up in one.

It’s been much reported in the media, and therefore has been quite sensationalized and completely distorted. Here are the facts:

• In 1970, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded a traditionalist Catholic order, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX for short).
• In 1987, out of fear that after his death the SSPX would have no bishops and would therefore be unable to ordain further priests, Absp. Lefebvre consecrated four SSPX priests as bishops.
• According to Canon Law (number 1382), “A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” These four priests were therefore automatically excommunicated upon their consecration. No one issued an order of excommunication; by virtue of their false consecration (i.e. without papal consent), they were no longer in communion with the larger Roman Catholic Church.
• So as to stop further church division, on 21 January 2009, Pope Benedict XVI urged the Congregation of Bishops to lift the excommunication of these four persons. This does not mean that the concomitant suspension of their ordination has been lifted. They are not considered priests or bishops. They are simply allowed to receive Holy Communion.
• On the same day, a previously taped interview of one of these false bishops, Richard Williamson, was aired on Swedish television in which he expressed doubts regarding the extent of the Jewish holocaust.

As to be expected, the Anti-Defamation League immediately denounced the pope’s actions. This put it in the news, where innumerable falsities have been reported. Perhaps the worst of these was on CBC’s The Hour, as host George Stroumboulopoulos stated that although John Paul II had excommunicated “Bishop Williamson” because of his views on the holocaust, Benedict XVI restored him to the office of bishop because he didn’t think his views on the holocaust were all that bad.

More important than the ADL & global media reports, however, was the action taken by the Chief Rabbinate in Israel (a consortium of Ashkenazi and Sephardic rabbis who govern all religious activity in Israel), who ended all ties with the Vatican on Tuesday, 27 January, claiming that they would not resume until Williamson had retracted his views. The following day, however, after Benedict XVI denounced Williamson’s words, the Rabbinate stated that it would reconsider.

The ecumenically good, bad & ugly of all this?

THE GOOD:

1. The Vatican is against church division and is willing to sidestep canon law in order to heal it.
2. The situation has brought about another statement from Rome in support of the Jewish people.
3. The Rabbinate might not end all talks with the Vatican.

THE BAD:

1. Williamson isn’t too bright.
2. The Rabbinate has ended all talks with the Vatican.

THE UGLY:

1. How misunderstandings of the situation have resulted in gross distortions that have injured Jewish-Christian relations. The media, in order to wrench a sensationalized story out of a rather un-sensational process of un-excommunication of a relatively minor group of individuals, has damaged the reputation – and therefore the witness – of the church.

In all of this I am reminded of Karl Barth’s words regarding the Word of God as a solitarily honest act, in contradistinction to human words:

When God speaks, there is no point in looking about for a related act. The fear that talk might be “only” talk is, of course, only too apposite in relation to human speech. When man speaks, then his misery, the rift between truth and reality in which he lives, is plainly exposed….When God speaks, however, the fear is groundless. (Church Dogmatics I/1, p. 143)

P.S. For those who would think I’ve confused “ecumenical” and “interreligious” in this edition of the “ecumenically good, bad & ugly,” I would like to distinguish the church’s relationship with the Jews from other “interreligious” relationships. The Jewish faith is, quite simply, not just “another” religion in the way that Buddhism is. Its prophets are our prophets; its early history is ours as well.

Leave a Response »